The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- The definition is missing the essential element of the book being official, canonical, or comprehensive in some context. Also, it is usually a book of data or regulations of some kind. I don't think having a red cover is essential to the definition, although usual. For instance the w:Red Book of Endangered Languages is (mostly) not red and the w:Red Book of Hergest was not bound in red morocco until 1851 according to . SpinningSpark 00:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then maybe there are multiple senses. The current usage included a series of IBM manuals. It is always possible to proliferate senses. The issue is when to stop. Personally, I am not a big fan of encyclopedic content in a dictionary. If WP covers it, then a link will do. When was the Welsh Red Book first called the Red Book or Welsh equivalent? I'd be surprised if literal red did not figure in the naming of all such books, though that might include naming in imitation of another book or series that had literal red in its etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed, it seems. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)